They also make this strange statement on a human right to water (which I oppose):

Indeed, to endure and reach everyone – especially the weakest, most remote, impoverished or unborn members in society – on an equal basis, parties felt reluctant to force water access unilaterally from above. Nor can rights take shape without due respect for local cultural, gender, political or natural context. Rather, it became clear through the consultation that secure access to water must be recognized as a fundamental right for all, which can’t be taken away. [p.5]

It's strange to me that their bold text contradicts the statements above about "unilaterally from above" and "local... context." Did someone forget to run the logic checker?

Bottom line: The UN and other bureaucrats cannot help people if they are too confused to see their own failings and contradictions.

2 comments:

From a legal standpoint, the most important part of the statement may be the last clause: "...which can't be taken away." That turns water access from a positive right (something that someone else must provide), into a negative right (something someone cannot legally obstruct). It dovetails with the idea of a property right to water. A third party cannot legally obstruct prescriptive access rights to water. It represents a shift or at least a course correction from the General Assembly Comment (64) in 2010, which appeared to make water a positive right.